Judge Says Health-Care Overhaul Can Roll Out While Government Appeals

By Katherine Hobson

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson stayed his Jan. 31 ruling that the health-care overhaul law violates the Constitution. That means law can continue to be implemented while the Obama administration appeals the ruling — which the judge wants to happen pronto.

The judge makes it clear he is not happy about how this has played out, however. As the WSJ reports, Vinson says he meant his original ruling to freeze the roll-out of the law, at least in the 26 states that are involved in the suit.

He writes that he didn’t expect the Obama administration “would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the act, and only then file a belated motion to ‘clarify,’ ” the WSJ says.

Now, Vinson says he is staying his ruling but wants the Obama administration to file an appeal within seven days and to seek an expedited review at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Comments (5 of 20)

The orinigal intent of the Constitution is for the welfare of the American people. I believe our Founding Fathers would have wanted all Americans to be taken care of instead of giving all our welfare to other countries.

6:02 am March 16, 2011

John Fembup wrote :

Congressional Aid I think you would probably laugh to know where I have worked (I’m retired).

Nevertheless I mock PNHP Doc not because I dislike her. I mock her because what she adds to the discussion is so richly deserving of mockery.

For example this crock: "what product the current health i [sic] insurance industry delivers for $750 billion in taxpayer payments"

PNHP Doc always misstates the amounts. She will not admit the simple truth that more than 80% of the money going thru the system is spent to pay for medical benefits (and in group plans, as much as 95% of it). Payment for medical benefits of course is income to providers of medical services. So her facts are wrong but more importantly she avoids the main issue - namely that access to health care in this country is not fundamentally an insurance problem it is a medical cost problem. Treating it as an insurance problem has not led to a solution for more than 45 years, and won’t ever lead to a solution.

PNHP is also wrong on basic economics. Middlemen do not exist except where their expertise is worth more to them than their fees are worth to a buyer. Otherwise, there would be no buyers and therefore, no middlemen. But it takes only a moment’s reflection to see that middlemen are common in our economy, for the reason I state. Why for example, does the federal government contract out Medicare and Medicaid to private insurance companies? Because the government has decided that it is more efficient for it to outsource the enrollment, eligibility, payment of claims, accounting, and other routine “insurance” tasks – the same reason the government has decided to outsource myriads of other routine tasks. That PNHP Doc refuses to acknowledge this, is not somehow my problem (or anyone else’s problem but PNHP Doc’s).

And of course PNHP's agenda as a lobbyist for higher physician compensation prevents PNHP Doc from conceding that there is a medical cost problem in the first place. Therefore she avoids acknowledging that the cost of medical care in the US is far higher than any other developed nation.

Because, you see, that would lead to other conclusions that PNHP does not want to admit: that medical insurance is expensive because medical care is expensive; that medical insurance premiums rise every year because the cost of medical care rises every year; that the main obstacle to obtaining medical care in the US is its high cost; and that Federal statistics (which I have posted on this board) support these statements. PNHP Doc offers nothing substantive in defense of her own rants – only inane comments and negligible sources that avoid facts, avoid the issue and which are therefore richly deserving of mockery.

5:12 pm March 9, 2011

Congressional Aid wrote :

John:
You mock PNHP Doctor because she is correct and you work for a health insurance company.

5:09 pm March 9, 2011

PNHP To Dear John wrote :

Did you last post explain the benefits of the private current health insurance scheme in America? I read it carefully but failed to find any explanation of exactly what product the current health i insurance industry delivers for $750 billion in taxpayer payments each year...waiting for an answer, I'm sure you can tell me exactly what this industry delivers in a capitalistic and competitive manner without subsidies which is soooo vital for the health and well being of this Country. Maybe I just read your post too quickly, lol.

1. Wendell Potter? You call him an "insurance executive"? AS IF Potter knows anything meaningful about the business of insurance? He was a public relations flack, he told the public what his betters at CIGNA told him to say. He did that very well and cashed CIGNA's checks for 20 years. When presented with a real challenge to explain to the public, he failed. Of course, he blames CIGNA and the whole industry for his own failure and in so doing, became a hero to dupes like yourself who ache to be able to "prove" something or other about the insurance industry, but haven't the knowledge or wit to do it yourselves, or even to select credible sources - especially if the credible sources do not support the agenda that motivates you in the first place. Potter is still blowing smoke, that's what he does. You still don't get it.

2. PNHP website? I'll give you this: capitalism -- what we don't have in the US -- is the exploitation of man by man. Socialism -- what we read at the PNHP website - is just the reverse. (By the way, you forgot to mention "capitalistic" competition.) lol.

PNHP Doc, you chirp endlessly but offer no facts, cite no reliable sources, use no logic, misrepresent the issues, and frame no coherent argument. However, I must admit you are amusing. In a birdlike way.

Note well, PNHP Doc, I don’t mock you because I dislike you. I mock you because what you have to say is so richly deserving of mockery.